Trump Cites Rand Paul Defense Day After Widely Panned Putin Summit

A day after an anti-diplomatic performance almost everyone agreed was an unmitigated disaster, President Trump approvingly cited one of the few people who disagreed with that assessment, then acknowledged that his press conference with Vladimir Putin had not exactly gone over well.

Thank you @RandPaul, you really get it! “The President has gone through a year and a half of totally partisan investigations - what’s he supposed think?”

While I had a great meeting with NATO, raising vast amounts of money, I had an even better meeting with Vladimir Putin of Russia. Sadly, it is not being reported that way - the Fake News is going Crazy!

Trump earned some of the worst reviews of his presidency on Monday with his deferential appearance at a press conference with Putin in Helsinki, during which he credulously accepted Putin’s denial of hacking the 2016 elections, siding with the Russian autocrat over U.S. intelligence agencies. Many stalwart defenders of the president — Newt Gingrich, the Drudge Report, even Fox & Friends — had to admit that it was not their hero’s finest moment.

But there were some notable exceptions. Senator Paul said in an interview that Trump “did a good thing” by meeting with Putin, and, echoing Trump’s protestations over the last year, said the president had undergone an “onslaught of partisan investigations.” That was enough to earn him a presidential endorsement.

All three members of Fox News’ prime-time lineup — Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity — also went to bat for Trump on Monday night, giving the president a little more wiggle room to cherry-pick from favorable responses to his “Russia first” policies amid the continuing onslaught of criticism.

#BREAKING: I’m told the entire @BPDAlerts Emergency Response Team has resigned from the team, a total of 57 officers, as a show of support for the officers who are suspended without pay after shoving Martin Gugino, 75. They are still employed, but no longer on ERT. @news4buffalo

In case you were wondering about the unmarked federal agents dotting Washington

Few sights from the nation’s protests in recent days have seemed more dystopian than the appearance of rows of heavily armed riot police around Washington, D.C., in drab military-style uniforms with no insignia, identifying emblems or names badges. Many of the apparently federal agents have refused to identify which agency they work for. “Tell us who you are, identify yourselves!” protesters demanded, as they stared down the helmeted, sunglass-wearing mostly white men outside the White House. Eagle-eyed protesters have identified some of them as belonging to Bureau of Prisons’ riot police units from Texas, but others remain a mystery.

The images of such heavily armed, military-style men in America’s capital are disconcerting, in part, because absent identifying signs of actual authority the rows of federal officers appear all-but indistinguishable from the open-carrying, white militia members cos-playing as survivalists who have gathered in other recent protests against pandemic stay-at-home orders. Some protesters have compared the anonymous armed officers to Russia’s “Little Green Men,” the soldiers-dressed-up-as-civilians who invaded and occupied western Ukraine. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to President Donald Trump Thursday demanding that federal officers identify themselves and their agency.

To understand the police forces ringing Trump and the White House it helps to understand the dense and not-entirely-sensical thicket of agencies that make up the nation’s civilian federal law enforcement. With little public attention, notice and amid historically lax oversight, those ranks have surged since 9/11—growing by roughly 2,500 officers annually every year since 2000. To put it another way: Every year since the 2001 terrorist attacks, the federal government has added to its policing ranks a force larger than the entire Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).